Threadjack

[Salus Maior]

The discussion is over, stay on topic.

I don't appreciate being given orders by you.

The thing is nobody wants to be associated with an concept of eugenics. Fact is though that humans have been always doing it through the centuries and before. Just the methods got increasingly advanced, and the whole thing got less nasty than it used to be.

So really people move around this, but its just denial.

Those who can afford it, are going to do it. Like any other limitation on abortion rights, this would be a small symbolic victory on the way to a near-total ban.

Banning abortion of fetuses specifically for their genotype would be literally eugenics. Noem just farted out her own mouth. And I guess I can leave it there.

This guy keeps trying to continue an abortion argument in the American politics thread.

[Salus Maior]

If I had any military training or experience and the means to do it I probably would.

This is the only thing you've talked about, before you began insisting that the abortion/Downs Syndrome topic was finished.

Abortion is too girly for you. Let's talk about guns and ammo instead!

Some flaming added onto it.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You must be kidding. Kristy Noem's statement that abortions should not be allowed in cases of Down's Syndrome is ABSOLUTELY on the topic of US politics. Discussion of what other disabilities might be protected, whether it is or isn't eugenics, are all related.

Furthermore Salus Major participated in this supposed threadjack, and only wants it to end because he's losing.

The second quoted post highlights that the only alternative subject being offered by SM is fighting in an Assyrian army. Surely that's even worse off-topic?

[Salus Maior]

You must be kidding. Kristy Noem's statement that abortions should not be allowed in cases of Down's Syndrome is ABSOLUTELY on the topic of US politics. Discussion of what other disabilities might be protected, whether it is or isn't eugenics, are all related.

Furthermore Salus Major participated in this supposed threadjack, and only wants it to end because he's losing.

The second quoted post highlights that the only alternative subject being offered by SM is fighting in an Assyrian army. Surely that's even worse off-topic?

The mods can decide that when they trawl the thread.

[Lamoni]

Addressed.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I'm a bit troubled by how another poster can GIVE ME AN ORDER to cease posting on a subject, and my only choices are to comply or to break a rule.

I do not recognize Salus's authority to give me orders. If it had been a suggestion, sure, I'd see the wisdom of it, but the sheer arrogance of wanting the last word with an order to someone he'd previously debated with, just demands some come-back. Which I did, while you notice summarizing my whole position of Noem's proposal and putting back into the context of the thread.

I think this poster knows full well that I can't afford to break a rule even in a small way that others get away with. They're using mods as weapons to bully me, quite clearly for the reason of getting out of an argument that was going badly for them.

I am REPORTING Salus Major, for the opening post of this very Moderation thread, and for their conduct in the US Politics thread. The charge is USING MODS AS WEAPONS.

And toss in some IMPERSONATING A MOD as well.

As to my own warning, I'm at a loss to see how the second post is flaming, but will accept the Warning for threadjacking. I tend to do that, since I have a bad habit of writing more than anyone is interested in reading.

1. Second Opinion on my own ruling, please.

2. REPORT of Salus Major, USING MODS AS WEAPONS, please.

[Starblaydia]

1. Second Opinion on my own ruling, please.

Given your extensive moderation history across multiple nations, that you are entirely aware of, you know you have a much shorter leash than most other posters, as you have yourself said:

I can't afford to break a rule even in a small way that others get away with

'too girly for you' is a prime example of this. Appeal denied.

2. REPORT of Salus Major, USING MODS AS WEAPONS, please.

Not actionable. The 'Mods as Weapons' rule, capitalised or otherwise, does not work the way you are implying.

The threat of "Don't do X or I'll call the mods" is Mods as Weapons.

"Don't do X", you doing X, and them then making a valid report in Moderation is exactly how reporting is supposed to work. Doubly so when you accept that what you did in the first place was threadjacking, having been given a recommendation to stop posting about the subject. Additionally, for the mild accusation you've casually tossed in there, at no point did Salus claim to be a mod, make a post impersonating a mod, use the warn tags, or anything similar.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

1. Second Opinion on my own ruling, please.

Given your extensive moderation history across multiple nations, that you are entirely aware of, you know you have a much shorter leash than most other posters, as you have yourself said:

I can't afford to break a rule even in a small way that others get away with

'too girly for you' is a prime example of this. Appeal denied.

2. REPORT of Salus Major, USING MODS AS WEAPONS, please.

Not actionable. The 'Mods as Weapons' rule, capitalised or otherwise, does not work the way you are implying.

The threat of "Don't do X or I'll call the mods" is Mods as Weapons.

"Don't do X", you doing X, and them then making a valid report in Moderation is exactly how reporting is supposed to work. Doubly so when you accept that what you did in the first place was threadjacking, having been given a recommendation to stop posting about the subject. Additionally, for the mild accusation you've casually tossed in there, at no point did Salus claim to be a mod, make a post impersonating a mod, use the warn tags, or anything similar.

I will be making a final appeal on this. I've read back to

South Dakota Governor Calls For a Ban on Down-Syndrome Abortion

South Dakota Governor Calls For a Ban on Down-Syndrome Abortion

Explain to me why he should get to dictate if a person gets to have an abortion again?

Explain to me why he should get to dictate if a person gets to have an abortion again?

*she

(btw the article has a photograph of the Governor, top right)

... and in my opinion, my own posts about the moral implications of a PROPOSED GOVERNMENT POLICY in South Dakota, are the most on-topic of all the extended abortion posts. I avoid talking about whether abortion itself is right or wrong, only about whether protection for Downs foetus is right in itself. I made what I think is sound case that Governor Noem's proposed protection for Down's kids is government enforced eugenics. I didn't even get sidetracked by posters implying I'm as bad as the Nazis.

I am absolutely unrepentant for these posts about abortion.

The rude post pointing out SM's hypocrisy in telling ME to end the threadjack, when his previous contributions other the threadjack itself was to talk about fighting in Africa, I do regret for being too harsh. I should have said "women's issues" instead of "girly", but I doubt it would have made any difference. Moderation policy is clearly to assume that what I meant, is whatever the offended party claims I meant. If SM had called it "flamebaiting" you'd have warned me for Flamebaiting, I'm quite sure.

The leash is so short now, I can't even put my feet on the ground after a two week break. I was going to make a final appeal about the two Mods who slandered me while handing out bans and deletions, but this latest turn of events convinces me it was a deliberate abuse of power: actually intended to disgust and enrage me so I'd commit the actual offense of Posting Past Ban and we could all cut to the chase and make Hobos DOS. The chances of having Sedgistan over-ruled never were good, but now I can see that they're zero.

It may be the last thing I'm ever allowed to post on NS, so I hope I can make it clear. Expecting posters after a ban to be significantly better behaved than the posters they share threads with, is an absolutely stupid waste of poster talent, and site reputation. There's a reason "one law for all" is the standard in criminal justice, and juries are only informed of past criminal record AFTER making a ruling. Ruling and sentencing are separated for exactly that reason. Escalating punishments for repeat offenses are just. A lower standard of proof, for alleged repeat offenses, is absolutely unjust.

Every second ruling passed on me has begun with the words "considering your record" before going on to explain that I deserve punishment for whatever I just did. We're well past the point that whatever I did can be explained as flaming (even in broad terms like "a personal attack") because honestly it's not. It's over some line I can't see and won't even have pointed out to me, because "you've been here long enough to know". I line you can't see until you're being punished for crossing it, is utterly worthless to prevent the supposed bad behaviour. And obviously unjust.